I still remember what I believe is the last one to actually get demonstrated to the patent office maybe 25 years ago, long after they had supposedly quit even considering them. He had a good lawyer. What tickled me is that I guessed the mechanism (using a voltmeter improperly) prior to knowing anything about it and that turned out to be the case.

I figure if anyone comes up with one I'll probably hear the explosion before reading about it in the paper!

Rick

The pattern with crackpot inventions, posted on March 21, 2011 at 11:53:19

I was having a dinner conversation with a new friend a week ago and the subject of alternate energy came up. After some discussion, I agreed to check out a company that "had" one of these magnetic motors, Steorn. This one looks highly suspect on claims alone, since these include 485% output over input—were this to be the case any competent engineer could build a working generator that would not require any abuse of instrumentation to demonstrate success. Years have gone by since the company made those claims yet they are still looking for sources of funding. I think some curious and a little foolish people got started down the garden path, at least I don't think they intended to perpetrate a fraud at the outset. (I don't think this is sad, because if nobody tries "impossible" ideas there will never be progress. What's sad is when greed takes over and the marketing people are brought in before there is any working technology.)

From time to time, people ask me to debunk various "impossible" inventions. The first time was a system of modulation for transmitting information by a new method of modulation that did not require any sidebands. Unfortunately, it wasn't possible for me to be specific in my debunking, just rely on general principles. The reason was that I had been asked to make a purchase recommendation for the technology and there were to be no details unless my recommendation was in the affirmative and money paid over to the "inventor". (That alone should raise suspicions...) Many years later the details came out and the "technology" was debunked. I think you will enjoy the linked debunking. A brief quote to whet your appetite:

"This seems to be the quite the pattern with crackpot inventions: when demos fail and deliverables aren't delivered, the inventor falls out with the business guy. Pretty soon the two sides are locked in an expensive legal battle over the ownership of a technology that neither side can admit is utterly worthless. As usual, the only winners are the lawyers."

On one of those lawsuits I was employed by the lawyers as a technology consultant... :)

Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

"would not require any abuse of instrumentation to demonstrate success"

Ah, but that always seems to happen to wit...

"Apparently he has now pushed it well below the noise floor of his spectrum analyzer. And since he can no longer see it, he proclaims it to be gone. I eagerly await the results of real-world testing of this new breakthrough." That seems to me much the same thing as not understanding (or admitting?) that the reading on a 'standard' AC voltmeter is dependent upon the crest-factor of the signal.

The tricky thing is knowing whether they are evil or just ignorant. It's almost impossible to tell and if they are speaking to someone with no background in the field the presenter's earnestness is a large part of the story. If they really don't know any better, they can be seriously sincere and honest indeed. Perhaps the definitive test is unplug the load and start to plug the input into the output. If, as you approach the socket, the inventor is running away as fast as he can it might be a good idea to stop the test and buy stock!

Thanks for the link Tony, I definitely enjoy it. Talking about modulation can lead to strange conundrums. An oxymoron that I've always been fond of is that Hams call keyed transmissions 'CW' (continuous wave). Naturally it's anything but, however it sort of makes sense if you look at it the right way: when your transmitter is 'on' i.e. you have pressed the key, then the output is continuous until you let go. Now THAT'S narrow band, no information is transmitted during the period that the transmitter is on! Allow me to offer you some friends and family shares at a good price...

Regards, Rick

RE: The pattern with crackpot inventions, posted on March 21, 2011 at 17:39:39

As a teenage ham, I once got cited for my CW emissions not being sufficiently continuous, a.k.a. key clicks. I wasn't in the habit of holding the key down long. Most of my conversations were around 40 WPM. :-)

Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

RE: The pattern with crackpot inventions, posted on March 21, 2011 at 19:34:10

I vaguely thought you were an old ham but wasn't sure. Apparently your transmitter was snappier than mine. I built my novice transmitter following (sort of) an ARRL design, it was a power oscillator made with a beam power tube link coupled to the antenna. Oddly enough it wouldn't oscillate unless I pressed back on the top of the front panel so I bent it back at a rakish angle and all was well. With that low of a loop gain at least leading edge key clicks were no problem... I wonder how many fifteen-year-olds build transmitters these days? I've noticed that a lot of AAers are also hams, I think that's because audio was exciting at the same time that ham radio was popular. Besides if you were building a plate modulator it wasn't that hard to build two and just equip one with a PP plate-VC transformer.

73, Rick

RE: "The pattern with crackpot inventions", posted on March 22, 2011 at 10:32:40

"Perhaps you'd be kind enough, as one of them scientific types, to debunk the Red X Coordinate Pen, surely a "crackpot invention" if ever there was one."

I suspect that this particular PWB product will be found by its customers to work as advertised. This is quite clear to me, so much so that I don't feel a need for further investigation. Furthermore, it is clear that if a true skeptic were to try such a product they will fail to perceive any effects. (Some people may think of themselves as skeptics and in the course of this endeavor discover otherwise. Such people are likely to be rare, however.) :-)

There are advanced techniques that can be used to achieve powerful results, including knowledge of the past, present and future. These results may obviate the need of an audio system. However, these techniques do not necessarily come cheap. They do not require the use of a pen, pencil, or other material object, except the subject's own physical body.

Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

RE: "The pattern with crackpot inventions", posted on March 22, 2011 at 12:09:05